This is a discussion on Supreme Court ruling on Abramski could limit Obama’s radical, gun-control aims within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; MILLER: Supreme Court ruling on Abramski could limit Obama's gun-control aims - Washington Times
ATF using straw purchase law to expand government control of private ...

ATF using straw purchase law to expand government control of private firearms transfers

The Abramski ruling will be key to determining how far President Obama can push his gun-control agenda. Mr. Obama wants to expand background checks to include private transactions so that the government would know exactly who has a gun. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
The federal government is deliberately twisting the intent of a congressional statute to lure more people into its web.

This is the exact reason why presidential appointments is so very dangerous.

We need to be keeping a close watch on this.

Our RKBA is in the cross-hairs of the liberals and their communist agenda.

Was the buyer in the original transaction, and that transaction was documented, though perhaps intent on making a buck based on market conditions.

The other guy was the buyer in the next transaction, and the transfer was documented there as well.

Little different than buying a product for $1 and the next day getting offered $1.50 for it and deciding to sell. But, realizing the market conditions ahead of time makes one a felon? Hard to distinguish between what the ATF wants it to be, and what a normal, everyday resale to make a profit is. What, doing so 1yr afterwards is fine, and so is 9mos later, but 8mos later or 2 days later isn't?

Still, if "straw" purchases as a legal definition are to have any meaning whatsoever, any resale of any firearm within X days of original purchase must be all seen as the same thing (at least IMO): overtly criminal, or benignly irrelevant.

That added question on the gun purchasing form is a perfect example of bureaucratic bullying. They've intentionally set a legal trap for folks who have no intent for criminal mischief.
This hits close to home for me because I want to give each of my kids a pistol for their 21st birthday.
How can I even do that legally?
There has to be a better/constitutional way to address gun-running without stripping law- abiding citizens of their right to give a new gun as a gift or help out a friend.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated: “[I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have to.”

Like Brass said, you can no longer buy a firearm as a gift. You cannot buy a .22 rifle for your 16 yr old child. Worse yet, look at the implications in conjunction with the progressive "universal background checks". The gov. would know every firearm transaction via form 4473. They could then selectively prosecute any transaction under the premise that you did not indicate your intent to sell the gun at a later date. This would effectively criminalize the entire used gun market.

So wait a minute. IF I understand this correctly the ATF is interpreting the question to mean once you buy the firearm you are agreeing to never gift or sell that firearm? That would never fly. I cannot guarantee I will never sell any of my firearms let alone gift them to one of the kids. So by that definition everyone who answers yes to that question is potentially being untruthful? Therefore disqualified from that purchase or when that firearm is transferred the original owner now becomes a felon???? It also is a huge slap to capitalism and my ability to buy something now and sell later at a potential profit. Lets hope SCOTUS gets this one right.

This is an interpretation that would effectively end any father to son or parent to child firearm tradition. It is a way to criminalize not only firearms but parenting. If this is upheld then governmental interest in financial transactions could be used to criminalize any transaction taking place without government approval. Can anyone say "Mark of the Beast"?

I "think" the technical "issue" here is the one party sent the money prior to the purchase so "legally" the first party was not buying for himself but for another as he'd already been paid for the pistol he was then buying .... ??????

Still think it is stupid but I believe that is "the issue" the ATF is leaning on

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated: “[I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have to.”

I "think" the technical "issue" here is the one party sent the money prior to the purchase so "legally" the first party was not buying for himself but for another as he'd already been paid for the pistol he was then buying .... ??????

Still think it is stupid but I believe that is "the issue" the ATF is leaning on

I "think" the technical "issue" here is the one party sent the money prior to the purchase so "legally" the first party was not buying for himself but for another as he'd already been paid for the pistol he was then buying .... ??????

Still think it is stupid but I believe that is "the issue" the ATF is leaning on

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated: “[I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have to.”